Any reliable sites on "alternative" news and knowledge?

I know of several but here is one to look at http://www.summum.us/summum.shtml

@Summum Oh please list the names of the other as well, friend.
Pax et Lux tibicvm.

I am a bit confused here. You want “reliable,” “no bullshit” “trustworthy” sources on these topics, but these are, for the most part, fictional topics (with a few real but often woo-tainted ones such as quantum physics). Does that mean you want sites that debunk them? Or do you want university sites on the actual factual topics like astrophysics and quantum physics?

@crisw _“Or do you want university sites on the actual factual topics like astrophysics and quantum physics?“_This would be a fine option, mate. Thanks for asking.
I am interested in the “theoretical” fictitious part, as well though.
I want to understand if there is a basis of truth behind the apparent myths.
Either allegorically or .. whatever other aspect there may be.
cheers.

Try looking up about.com and omg-facts.com they are pretty reliable, but most of your topics are actually fictional or unconfirmed, dude…

(And what does “amatorial” mean? “Reptilian” is an adjiective. Do you mean “reptiles”?)

i will have to look back at some of my texts for sources but this may be up your alley (http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm). you may wanna try ‘ancient occult texts’ search on google + sift thru some of that as well. cheers!

@crisw Oh and by “reliable” and “no Bs” I mean, no amateur sites that claim things as true without giving a proper, meticulous description/explanation or illustration on the ”why” and ”how”...
If it has to be a theory, It has to be presented in a valid manner, depicting the basis of its concept. Not just blatantly “out there” trying to convince people of what it offers, taking advantage of their “ignorance” and lack of proper information.
As a matter of fact, I even found plenty etymological, orthographic, grammatical, historical, technical,...( you name it) ERRORS ..(or, rather: HORRORS) in many of these sites I rebuke.
For instance, once I found this:
“Olaf.. a Norse name which means Loaf of bread. In fact it is Loaf backwards”.
Dumb numbskulls.. how could someone insult anyone’s intelligence with that? it’s not even backwards…
So.. that is also what I want to avoid.

@gailcalled sorry for the misspelled word, mate I’ve got many languages in my head and at the moment I was thinking in Italian: “Amatoriale”. Means Amateurish.

@sahuleka546 thank you. Yes, I do realise that many of the topics I chose to ask about are unconfirmed. I want to find out why they exist, basically.
cheers.

@963chris Indeed, will try that as well, mate. thanks

@Anatelostaxus you’re welcome, cheers ;)

Oh and by the way, everybody… those mentioned were just some examples… there’s plenty more to talk about..

I like wired.com, it is mostly technology but they also have some good science-related articles. Actually, it is my favorite blog to read (they publish a magazine as well). Not sure if this is exactly what you’re looking for though, it seems you’re interested in some pretty ‘heavy’ stuff (back to the future nod).

Wow… a reliable source on bullshit. As paradoxical as it sounds, there are actually some good skeptical sites that kind of fit into that category.

www.skeptoid.com
www.theskepticsguide.org
www.randi.org
www.skeptic.com

News is that which is without
and that is which makes the internet…and it is mostly b…shit.

Knowledge is within and you need not search anywhere else.

Amen kess lurve

@kess Yes, thank you for the mentoring, Kess.. but I asked a specific question.
Yours is not an answer. . I wish to deepen my acquired knowledge so to formulate an opinion of my own on the matters.
and (not to be hostile, far from it) Knowledge cannot be within, my dear.
Even wisdom is acquired through experience..thus=knowledge.

The only thing that could be discussed is whether knowledge is essential or not.
Not whether it is an exterior or internal factor of our individual evolution. Because initially, it is only exterior. Consequentially it is absorbed within and made one’s own.
I might be mistaken if you are referring to another connotation of knowledge I didn’t grasp whilst reading your comment a first time.
Please, go further into detail, if you wish to commence a dialectic. I would be glad to.

@Summum .. I place my observation before you as well, that you both may confront your responses with mine.

If you are referring to the “a-priori” theory, that is valid only in a few cases which concern special nature, strictly.

Project Camelot interview heaps of weird, wacky and wonderful people, Icke etc, included.
Iv listened to a lot of it and most is in the realm off entertainment, however some useful information can be gleaned from it.
Any of Alex jones’ sites can occasionally be useful for stuff not being reported in the mainstream, although you have to sift through the hard core conspiracy theory side of things to find it.

http://www.rocketboom.com/news-google-tv/

@Anatelostaxus Very well said. That’s exactly what I was thinking as I read Kess’s answer. Nobody ever reached the moon by looking within.

@Arbornaut Awh, that’s perfect mate.. I’m receiving some seriously interesting suggestions from you people. Thank you.
Yes, I’d heard of the project camelot, if I’m not mistaken, in one of David Wilcock’s interviews.
It just didn’t tingle in my mind to s
search for the site.
I’m right on it, cheers again mate..

@Plone3000 well bud, must say.. I’m going through the site trying to figure out what it’s actually all about..
I do think it’ll be either interesting or entertaining.. in either case, thanks for the answer. good one.

@crazyivan I firmly agree with your metaphor.
Of course though, @kess is not at all to be shunned for what he expressed. There is great truth in what he said, only sealed in certain specific aspects of the growth of the intellect.

@Anatelostaxus Absolutely. It is kind of sad that people tend to fall so firmly on one side or the other of the mind/spirit divide. I think both sides have a lot to teach the other.